Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

1 September 2012[edit]

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2012-09-01 Edit

2012-09-01 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Deleted and recreated clean then redirected. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I've yanked everything I found and additionally a sentence added later copied from another source. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Wizardman 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Wizardman 01:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Stubbed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely CNAB will have any fundamental objection to reproduction of the content. I'll contact them and advise them of the situation and tell them someone from Wikipedia will contact them. Opbeith (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as granting Wikipedia permission for reproduction; please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for a full discussion of the rights which need to be requested and granted. Given the huge backlog of copyright violations, it's also unlikely that anyone here is going to contact the CNAB on your behalf. As a fellow editor you're just as qualified as anyone else to make the relevant permission request, so you might as well do it yourself. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, without permission, we can't retain the content. I would have stubbed the article myself, but I don't generally do this if I'm in significant doubt about notability. :/ Nobody else made any effort to rewrite it, so deletion is our only option. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glogova massacre (history · last edit) from http://www.icty.org/x/cases/deronjic/cis/en/cis_deronjic.pdf. The ICTY holds copyright on that case information sheet; see http://www.icty.org/sections/Copyrightandconditionsofuse/Copyright. Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a new draft of the article here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ICTY spokesperson told me years ago that the ICTY are very happy to have their material reproduced as long as the ICTY is credited - which the reference obviously does. I suggest someone contact them to get formal blanket permission. See Momir Nikolic below as well, and as I am sure is obvious there are many other Balkans war crimes related articles that would be similarly affected, since ICTY material is the ultimate reliable reference source. Otherwise Wikipedia might just as well opt out of coverage of the whole area since it's unlikely that anyone is going to be able or willing to do wholescale unauthoritative rewriting of sometimes necessarily lengthy extracts of ICTY material used. Opbeith (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reproduction is not the only right which needs to be granted; please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details. If you're in contact with ICTY spokespeople then please see if you can obtain the necessary releases and forward them to an OTRS agent for processing. In any case, if you're aware of any other articles which reproduce ICTY material, then please list them here so that they can be checked. If and when permission from the ICTY is obtained a notice needs to be placed on their respective talk pages confirming that the material has been used with permission and linking to the OTRS case. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Proposed rewrite remained a close paraphrase. Stubbed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? No source found. Rather than tag the talk with cv-unsure, I just whacked a tone of unsourced, non-neutral content out of the article. It's been in sorry shape for years. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. reverted to clean version --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 09:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Now converted to redirect --SPhilbrick(Talk) 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_September_1